But the reality is, they’re suggesting something without actually saying it, thus there is no burden of proving it. They let your mind sort of fill in the blanks and their job is done. Many people who respond to this type of media, do not realize that a question mark really means they aren’t certain of or lack proof for their claims. They take it to mean that it’s something that is actually happening and the question mark is there for flavor.

Is Obama blah blah blah?

Was Obama blah blah blah?

That is a very dishonest approach to journalism, especially when someone’s name is in the mix.

They also always seem to often show pictures of Obama smiling, while captioning the smile with something that is supposed to sound negative or stir irritation.

Conversely, they will show him frowning, and caption it with something I dunno, something about patriotism or something exclusively American. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know how any mature adult can’t see this and think “This is messed up.” It’s amazing what you can do with a smile or a frown, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with what is written underneath them. Human beings can be very easily manipulated, by things as simple as a facial expression.

I click on the other stations and media outlet websites.  Obama looks a decent guy. Nope, no articles about people getting chills when he talks, sorry.  I wouldn’t prefer that kind of rhetoric either, but I just don’t see it happening.  However, I click on FOX news, Obama looks like a villain out of a comic book.

At www.foxnews.com, I’m currently treated to a smirking Obama that when combined with their selective quotations and wording makes it look as if he’s asking the House to finish a mafia hit instead of their heatlhcare bill. There is definitely a message here, even though it’s not explicitly written.  FOX is not just reporting the news, they’re also telling you how to interpret the news.  Sometimes they are subtle about it, and others times more blunt.  But it’s always there.  There’s always this extra message unnecessarily attached to the news.

Why can’t they caption the photos with what they were actually taken from? “Here is Obama smiling at an old acquaintance (not pictured)”.  Would that be too fair and balanced?

It’s just as effective to show Obama smiling heartily while displaying some text that causes outrage or disgust.  And I’ve seen this type of thing before on FOX.

FOX will always lose the fairness contest with the other stations, because other stations just don’t do this.

And where are the other stories in the world? Apparently on FOX nothing is ever going on except something that Obama’s doing, or some domestic event that can be spun as terrorism.  Also, where are the debates?  On CNN when they will often have editorials in pairs, with completely opposing views from each other.  Where is that on FOX?  Where’s the fair and balanced?  Writing editorials is arguable, ok, because everyone does it.  By why only have one type of editorial?  Why not encourage actual debate?  Is it unAmerican to have a debate now?  Should just accept one view point and not question it?

FOX probably has a world news section, but how often do you see something on their main page about starving in Africa?  Or how about what China is up to?  You know, our only real competitor in the world.  You’d think they’d have some interest in that topic.  Would it anger the sponsors FOX?  As it turns out, I get my news about China from MSNBC.  For some reason, they are not afraid to post stories about that topic that are unsettling and make us question whether we should be trading with this nation.  Nor do they fear monger over it.  They post news stories in a factual, straight forward manner in which I’m able to draw my own conclusions.  From the same article, I can conclude that the article is not a big deal, or that it’s a disaster; depending on my own prejudices.   It’s not inherent in the article that I should interpret it a certain way.  That must mean it’s a balanced article.

Continuing on, Europe of course doesn’t matter, unless they do something stupid, in which case FOX will have some stories for a good old folksy laugh at the expense of our allies across the pond.  Most things I read on that site just poop attacks wrapped in stars and stripes.  But the stain comes leaking through.

This station is not just biased, it’s bad for our country to have information intepreted for us.  Just give us the information, please.  I don’t need to see a picture of Obama grinning ear to ear, pinned over something disastrous that happened happened.  I can form my own opinions without your help.  Thanks!

I.  Avoid the D-word

- It is important for the public to know that saying the word d***h is bad luck, and might cause anyone to spontaneously d**.  Discussion of topics involving d***h are strictly prohibited under this bill, as we don’t need any more bad luck sources than we already have.

- $188 million.

II.  Awareness of respiration when driving by cemetaries.

- Spread public awareness about about the need to hold ones breath when driving by cemeteries, in honor of the dead.  Lest they rise from their graves and turn you into a zombie.

- $102 million.

III.  Awareness of sidewalk cracks.

- It is important for the public to know that stepping on a crack in the sidewalk may cause spontaneous spinal injuries in their mothers.  The amount of money saved by avoiding these cracks should be rather significant.

- $76 million.

IV.  Ladder awareness and prevention

- It is important for the public to know that walking under ladders causes bad luck, which can lead to significant delayed injury.  As well, this will likely reduce the lawsuits against ladder companies.  Doing so will help keep bad luck under control and health care costs down as a result.

- $79 million.

V. Elimination of all 13th floors.

- While many buildings have opted to re-label 13th floors as 14, we have found that this is not effective in deterring bad luck.  This proposal will require all buildings to simply not build past 12 stories, that way the number 13 can be avoided entirely.  We can’t risk direct exposure to that number.

- $84 million.

VI.  Establish “Department of Taboo Security.”

The most costly option involved, will ensure that the above statutes are enforced and deployed effectively in order to reduce health care costs.  We estimate the rewards of doing so to be in the trillions of dollars, over time.

- $467 million.

Disclaimer: The above work is satire, any similarity to the actual views of the opposition to Obama’s health care reform is coincidental.

The impassioned, romantic songs about it are wrong.  We are wired to care about ourselves first, and when people die we pause briefly to honor them, and then we move on; while they don’t.

Don’t believe the hype, you will be forgotten.  People will get over it, and you will have wasted your one chance at existence.

You will not continue to exist somehow in their memories, you will be a closed page on a partially finished book that is someone else’s life.